E6 with a level limit of 8 instead

[Jimp]

I was wondering would there be much of a mechanical change if I ran a game using the E6 rules but have the limit be ECL 8 instead. All the E6 rules and such would still be in place, the only change would be the cap increase to 8.
Can some mechanics minded people give me some insight?
E6 rules can be found here. (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=206323)

[Indon]

Hmm.

I know Druids gain some more Wild Shape powers.

The max spell level you'll see changes from 3 to 4.

You could now see up to 3 levels worth of Prestige Classes.

2/3'rds BAB classes gain a second attack.

[zaei]

There was a lot of discussion about E8 and (somewhat less) E10 over on the enworld forums. General feeling being that, while you start getting into the more powerful spells at this point, it's still not terribly unbalancing.

[Chronicled]

It's definitely doable. You'll have level 4 spells being somewhat problematic (that's when spells get GOOD: Black Tentacles, Solid Fog, Divine Power, etc), but there's not a huge disparity yet between casters and non.

There *is* a variant where you go to level 8, but after level 6 progression becomes very slow (you get BAB at "levelling", then saves, then HD, etc), until at level 8 you get bonus feats. It's on their boards, somewhere.

[MrNexx]

Huh, thought I'd commented on this. Guess its the boards being slow.

I don't see a problem but, as others have said, it gives a boost to casters, especially the 2/3rds BAB casters who get that extra attack.

Incidentally, I proposed E6 to the Birthright forums. They liked it, though seemed to prefer E(x), where X was 5+modifier based on bloodline strength.

[Satyr]

we played an E9 game, where new spelllevels came one level slower than usual (caping out at 3rd level spells at 9th level, obviously). I liked it, band it allows more flexibility , but it also shifts the power focus away from casters to fighters. I found that to be a very good thing, but obviously, there are other opinions as well.

[Swordguy]

we played an E9 game, where new spelllevels came one level slower than usual (caping out at 3rd level spells at 9th level, obviously). I liked it, band it allows more flexibility , but it also shifts the power focus away from casters to fighters. I found that to be a very good thing, but obviously, there are other opinions as well.

Now that I like.

[Jimp]

Any more opinions on this? Will the extra levels power-up ToB classes much more?

[Azerian Kelimon]

Not really. You get some powerful things (like Hand of Death) but nothing OMGZORZBROKEN!!!!!111!!!!onesevenone!

That said, I personally prefer E10 when I play E games. Mostly because, if done carefully, it allows you to complete one 5 level PrC.

[zaei]

Not really. You get some powerful things (like Hand of Death) but nothing OMGZORZBROKEN!!!!!111!!!!onesevenone!

That said, I personally prefer E10 when I play E games. Mostly because, if done carefully, it allows you to complete one 5 level PrC.

I've seen variants proposed that allow (with very careful DM consideration) characters to simply start off in a PrC class. Definitely a case-by-case basis, but I can see it working out.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Meh, that's too easy to break up. Take a look at one of the more harmless PrC's, Abjurant champion. It's an amazing gish in a can, and starting as one would be catastrophic. And is actually hard to detect, unlike a Mystic theurge, or MoM, or Planar Shepherd.

[Prometheus]

The single player game Baulder's Gate was originally capped at level 6, and I believe the expansion increased it two 8.

I concur that it would allow more prestige classes.

The one thing about the E6/8/10 system is that it doesn't seem to leave on a high note. It's yay! You got to the highest level its all downhill from here. I think I'd be tempted to give the character something small as a bonus for getting to that level. I dunno though, I've never played E anything.

[MrNexx]

The single player game Baulder's Gate was originally capped at level 6, and I believe the expansion increased it two 8.

Not quite. It was an XP cap, which meant some classes could get higher level than others, and multi-class characters (or human dual-classers) had some drawbacks... but the differences were such that you could do a level 5 fighter/level 6 cleric, IIRC.



The one thing about the E6/8/10 system is that it doesn't seem to leave on a high note. It's yay! You got to the highest level its all downhill from here. I think I'd be tempted to give the character something small as a bonus for getting to that level. I dunno though, I've never played E anything.

The way I see it is that you get to the highest level, and then your increases go from exponential to linear. You still have the lure of more things to learn (feats), more goodies to get (treasure), and, of course, all of the story-based things that make a game fun (i.e. winning a title).

[Satyr]

I would strongly recommend an odd level as maximum. This gives the he characters a bigger advancement chance without advancing the maximum spell level.

[MrNexx]

I would strongly recommend an odd level as maximum. This gives the he characters a bigger advancement chance without advancing the maximum spell level.

The downside to odd levels is sorcerers, favored souls, and the like; they get their spell levels on an even level. So, if you set it at, say, level 7, wizards will not only have other wizardly advantages over sorcerers, but they'll have a whole spell level.

[Chronicled]

I would strongly recommend an odd level as maximum. This gives the he characters a bigger advancement chance without advancing the maximum spell level.

How does it not advance the maximum spell level? Most spellcasters get their new spell levels on odd levels.

And as Mr. Nexx has mentioned, it completely shafts sorcerers and favored souls.

There's a reason it's E6/E8/E10, not E7/E9/etc